8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Estudio transversal del estado anímico y de salud del personal del Servicio Navarro de Salud - Osasunbidea al menos 6 meses tras padecer infección por SARS-CoV-2 Translated title: Cross-sectional study of mood and health of the health workers from the Navarre-Osasunbidea Health Service at least 6 months after suffering SARS-CoV-2 infection

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          RESUMEN. Introducción: El colectivo de los trabajadores del ámbito sanitario es imprescindible para el abordaje de la pandemia. Los profesionales sanitarios experimentaron un incremento de fallecimientos de pacientes sin precedentes y al mismo tiempo, tuvieron que enfrentarse a difíciles y excepcionales condiciones laborales. Una cuarta parte de los casos diagnosticados en los primeros meses de la epidemia en España, correspondieron a trabajadores del sector sanitario. Material y Métodos: Estudio no experimental, transversal de investigación observacional que analiza datos de variables recopiladas a través de una entrevista semiestructurada, al menos 6 meses después de haber padecido infección por SARS-CoV-2. Los 17 ítems elegidos se agruparon en 3 bloques: diagnóstico y evolución; aspectos psicosociales; atención, seguimiento y actuaciones. Se recurrió a escalas numéricas tipo LIKERT para los ítems (alegría, ansiedad, tristeza y enfado). Resultados: Se analizaron un total de 1490 encuestas semiestructuradas. Por ocupaciones, el mayor porcentaje correspondió a DUE (32,7%), FEA (19,7%) y TCAE (17,2%), mientras que los porcentajes más bajos, fueron los relativos a Administrativos (11,3%) y Celadores (4,4%), y el 14,5 % restante, agrupados como TÉCNICOS. En cuanto a la persistencia de síntomas pasados 6 meses desde el contagio, el 28,1% de los encuestados respondieron afirmativamente. El mayor porcentaje de trabajadores que refirió persistencia de síntomas a los 6 meses, fue el personal TCAE (40,8%). Discusión: El riesgo de persistir con clínica a los 6 meses aumenta correlativamente conforme incrementa la edad del profesional. El resultado obtenido está en concordancia con las investigaciones publicadas hasta el momento.

          Translated abstract

          ABSTRACT Introduction: The group of workers in the health field is essential for dealing with the pandemic. Healthcare professionals experienced an unprecedented increase in patient deaths and at the same time, had to face difficult and exceptional working conditions. A quarter of the cases diagnosed in the first months of the epidemic in Spain corresponded to workers in the health sector. Material and Methods: Non-experimental, cross-sectional study of observational research that analyzes data of variables collected through a semi-structured interview, at least 6 months after having suffered SARS-CoV-2 infection. The 17 chosen items were grouped into 3 blocks: diagnosis and evolution; psychosocial aspects; attention, follow-up and actions. LIKERT-type numerical scales were used for the items (joy, anxiety, sadness and anger). Results: A total of 1,490 semi-structured surveys were analyzed. By occupations, the highest percentage corresponded to nurses (32.7%), doctors (19.7%) and nursing assistants (17.2%), while the lowest percentages were those related to Administrative (11.3 %), and Wardens (4.4%), and the remaining 14.5%, grouped as TECHNICIANS. Regarding the persistence of symptoms 6 months after infection, 28.1% of those surveyed answered affirmatively. The highest percentage of workers who reported persistence of symptoms at 6 months was nursing assistants (40.8%). Discussion: The risk of persisting with symptoms at 6 months increases correlatively as the professional's age increases. The result obtained is in agreement with the investigations published up to now.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A multinational, multicentre study on the psychological outcomes and associated physical symptoms amongst healthcare workers during COVID-19 outbreak

          Highlights • Commonly reported symptoms are headache, throat pain and lethargy. • A large number of healthcare workers report more than four symptoms. • Those with physical symptoms had higher rates of depression, anxiety, stress, PTSD. • Those with physical symptoms had higher mean scores in the IES-R, DASS subscales. • Association between physical symptoms and psychological outcomes may be bidirectional.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers in Singapore

            Background: In response to the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Singapore raised its Disease Outbreak Response System Condition alert to “orange,” the second highest level. Between 19 February and 13 March 2020, confirmed cases rose from 84 to 200 (34.2 per 1 000 000 population), with an increase in patients in critical condition from 4 to 11 (5.5%) and no reported deaths in Singapore (1). Understanding the psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak among health care workers is crucial in guiding policies and interventions to maintain their psychological well-being. Objective: We examined the psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress experienced by health care workers in Singapore in the midst of the outbreak, and compared these between medically and non–medically trained hospital personnel. Methods and Findings: From 19 February to 13 March 2020, health care workers from 2 major tertiary institutions in Singapore who were caring for patients with COVID-19 were invited to participate with a self-administered questionnaire. In addition to information on demographic characteristics and medical history (Table 1), the questionnaire included the validated Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS-21) and the Impact of Events Scale–Revised (IES-R) instrument (2, 3). Health care workers included “medical” (physicians, nurses) and “nonmedical” personnel (allied health professionals, pharmacists, technicians, administrators, clerical staff, and maintenance workers). The primary outcome was the prevalence of depression, stress, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among all health care workers (Table 2). Secondary outcomes were comparison of the prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD, and mean DASS-21 and IES-R scores between medical and nonmedical health care workers. The Pearson χ2 test and Student t test were used to compare categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively, between the 2 groups. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for the a priori defined confounders of age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, presence of comorbid conditions, and survey completion date. Table 1. Participant Characteristics at Baseline Table 2. Prevalence of Depression, Anxiety, Stress, and PTSD and Mean DASS-21 and IES-R Scores in Medical and Nonmedical Health Care Personnel (N = 470) Of 500 invited health care workers, 470 (94%) participated in the study; baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. Sixty-eight (14.5%) participants screened positive for anxiety, 42 (8.9%) for depression, 31 (6.6%) for stress, and 36 (7.7%) for clinical concern of PTSD. The prevalence of anxiety was higher among nonmedical health care workers than medical personnel (20.7% versus 10.8%; adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.15 to 2.99]; P = 0.011), after adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, survey completion date, and presence of comorbid conditions. Similarly, higher mean DASS-21 anxiety and stress subscale scores and higher IES-R total and subscale scores were observed in nonmedical health care workers (Table 2). Discussion: Overall mean DASS-21 and IES-R scores among health care workers were lower than those in the published literature from previous disease outbreaks, such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). A previous study in Singapore found higher IES scores among physicians and nurses during the SARS outbreak, and an almost 3 times higher prevalence of PTSD, than those in our study (4). This could be attributed to increased mental preparedness and stringent infection control measures after Singapore's SARS experience. Of note, nonmedical health care workers had higher prevalence of anxiety even after adjustment for possible confounders. Our findings are consistent with those of a recent COVID-19 study demonstrating that frontline nurses had significantly lower vicarious traumatization scores than non–frontline nurses and the general public (5). Reasons for this may include reduced accessibility to formal psychological support, less first-hand medical information on the outbreak, less intensive training on personal protective equipment and infection control measures. As the pandemic continues, important clinical and policy strategies are needed to support health care workers. Our study identified a vulnerable group susceptible to psychological distress. Educational interventions should target nonmedical health care workers to ensure understanding and use of infectious control measures. Psychological support could include counseling services and development of support systems among colleagues. Our study has limitations. First, data obtained from self-reported questionnaires were not verified with medical records. Second, the study did not assess socioeconomic status, which may be helpful in evaluating associations of outcomes and tailoring specific interventions. Finally, the study was performed early in the outbreak and only in Singapore, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Follow-up studies could help assess for progression or even a potential rebound effect of psychological manifestations once the imminent threat of COVID-19 subsides. In conclusion, our study highlights that nonmedical health care personnel are at highest risk for psychological distress during the COVID-19 outbreak. Early psychological interventions targeting this vulnerable group may be beneficial.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Nurse Reports of Stressful Situations during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Analysis of Survey Responses

              The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed nurses to conditions that threaten their health, well-being, and ability to work. It is therefore critical to study nurses’ experiences and well-being during the current crisis in order to identify risk groups for ill health and potential sources of organizational intervention. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of the most salient sources of stress in the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic in a sample of U.S. nurses. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among a sample of 695 U.S. nurses in May 2020. Content analysis was conducted on nurses’ responses (n = 455) to an open-ended question on the most stressful situations they had experienced during the pandemic. Six distinct themes emerged from the analysis: exposure/infection-self; illness/death-others; workplace; personal protective equipment/supplies; unknowns; opinions/politics. Two sub-themes concerned restrictions associated with the pandemic and feelings of inadequacy/helplessness regarding patients and their treatment. More than half of all comments concerned stress related to problems in workplace response to the pandemic. Healthcare institutions should provide opportunities for nurses to discuss the stress they are experiencing, support one another, and make suggestions for workplace adaptations during this pandemic.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                medtra
                Revista de la Asociación Española de Especialistas en Medicina del Trabajo
                Rev Asoc Esp Espec Med Trab
                Asociación Española de Especialistas en Medicina del Trabajo (Madrid, Madrid, Spain )
                1132-6255
                3020-1160
                2022
                : 31
                : 4
                : 397-411
                Affiliations
                [1] Pamplona orgnameServicio Navarro de Salud-Osasunbidea orgdiv1Servicio de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales Spain
                Article
                S3020-11602022000400008 S3020-1160(22)03100400008
                1e939443-a381-48da-b9c8-188a939807a8

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 19 December 2022
                : 31 August 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 23, Pages: 15
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Textos Originales

                pandemia,emociones,efecto psicológico,personal de salud,Long COVID,pandemic,emotions,psychological effects,health personnel,COVID Persistente

                Comments

                Comment on this article